Diagnostics, No. 2; Depoliticization

Why do people disengage from politics when their lives depend on political action in times of crisis?

Who is Depoliticized?

In the United States, politically disengaged groups can generally be divided into two categories. To simplify the discussion, I will describe them using abstract concepts to avoid delving into more specific debates that are not the focus of this post.

The first category includes individuals and groups who have been historically marginalized and effectively excluded from political participation. These communities tend to engage in politics at the local level, focusing on issues within their control. This type of disengagement is often associated with those who have been pushed to the fringes due to race, socioeconomic status, or historical factors such as discriminatory laws, policies, and violence (Alexander, 2010; Massey & Denton, 1993). However, an increasing number of groups are experiencing this form of disengagement, as various tactics and power structures work to maintain the status quo.

The second category consists of individuals who willingly disengage from politics, either due to privilege or frustration with a system that seems to work against them. It is crucial to note that although this group’s disengagement appears voluntary, they also experience systemic tactics that, while not overtly oppressive, serve to discourage and disengage them from demanding effective change (Bartels, 2008; Schlozman, Verba, & Brady, 2012).

Between Group Dynamics

It is important to highlight that a key factor contributing to political disengagement in the United States is the failure to recognize the connection between the frustrations experienced by the second group and the localized activism of the first group. The most effective depoliticization occurs when the struggles of different groups are seen as unrelated. For instance, when middle-class white families are led to believe that their challenges are distinct from those faced by marginalized communities, it allows power structures to maintain these groups in opposition or indifference to each other (Hochschild, 2016; Masket & Noel, 2013).

Furthermore, when the local activism and insights of the first group are adopted by the second group, they can be transformed into tools that promote self-interest and further division along class lines. This often results in the second group using local activism to target vulnerable communities and interests, rather than challenging the power structures that contribute to depoliticization for the entire population (Klandermans, 2013; McAdam, 1982).

A prime example of the division between the two groups mentioned earlier can be observed in instances of NIMBY-ism (Not In My Backyard) and public school desegregation conflicts. The main tool employed by those in power to separate the interests of these groups is the use of race and, occasionally, class moralization, both of which resonate strongly with Americans (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Orfield, 2001). As a result, Americans tend to respond to racially divisive tactics, while the primary interests of the ruling class are economic in nature. For the powerful, race serves as a means to control the masses and pit them against one another in intense competition, ultimately benefiting those at the top economically (Feagin, 2014; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006).

This tactic can be compared to dividing passengers into different boarding classes while herding them all onto the same airplane. Although the conditions for the upper boarding classes may be more comfortable than sitting at the back next to the lavatory, these distinctions become irrelevant in the event of a plane crash. Depoliticization occurs when the 1% convinces the upper boarding class that they are superior and more deserving than those at the back, even though they are aware that the plane is not in optimal condition to fly. To the powerful individuals who own the airline, all passengers are revenue-generating units, and their identities as first or second class boarders hold no significance, except to the passengers themselves. This lack of awareness is a critical issue in American society (Gaventa, 1980; McChesney, 1999).

It is worth noting that race is not the only factor contributing to the lack of solidarity among Americans, but it is one of the most evident and straightforward ways to persuade individuals that their problems do not stem from the wealthy or powerful, but rather from their peers and fellow citizens (Feagin, 2014; McChesney, 1999).

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that, from the perspective of those at the top, people with less than a million dollars in the bank are all considered to be part of the same economic “class.” To illustrate this point, consider the analogy of a tall person who appears significantly taller than most individuals they encounter. However, when viewed from the vantage point of a penthouse window atop a tower of elite wealth, all people below appear equally small, like ants. This comparison highlights the vast wealth disparity present in the United States (Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2012).

In short, as long as the primary vulnerability of American society remains rooted in race, the population will not be able to liberate itself from the economic domination of the 1%. This is not to undermine the significance of racial issues in America but rather to emphasize how race, along with other arbitrary class or identity distinctions, is utilized by those in power to divide the masses who generally share common concerns (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Feagin, 2014). This division ultimately prevents the organization of shared interests.

Contrary to the argument that race should be set aside in favor of class, as some scholars might suggest, it is essential to incorporate racial discourse analytically to counteract the disempowering leverage it offers to existing power structures (Alexander, 2010; Crenshaw, 1991). This approach necessitates the widespread inclusion of marginalized voices, intellectuals, and activists; however, it goes beyond mere incorporation of “voices” – instead this involves the adoption of their political tactics, strategies, theories, and methods, in other words, their praxes. Anything less risks falling into the trap of virtue signaling through identity politics and the illusions of neoliberal corporate forms of “diversity.” (Fraser, 1997; Young, 2000). Such diversity seeks to avoid structural redistribution and equity through the politics of “seeing” and “including” others in rapacious systems, rather than dismantling such systems (Fraser, 2019).

For some, adopting these new perspectives requires relinquishing the presumed necessity of input from individuals who currently hold social power. This argument is grounded in the observation that if the influence of those with existing social power were sufficient to reverse depoliticization trends, it would have already happened. To illustrate, if first-class passengers and their opinions could save the metaphorical airplane from its demise, they would have done so by now. As such, their ideas on how to avert disaster may not be the most informative or useful. Often, their input simply reinforces the status quo, urging others to maintain their positions while they “handle” the situation, which never truly occurs. Consequently, it is crucial not to remain passive or rely on the advice of those who perpetuate the existing power dynamics (Gaventa, 1980; Stiglitz, 2012).

The great equalizing fact is that whether one is structurally marginalized or just frustrated with the political status quo – neither can be politically liberated without the other. Hence why they are kept apart and in opposition.

Mechanisms of Depoliticization

So what are the general mechanisms of depoliticization? As I noted while the second depoliticized group may appear to be voluntarily disengaged, this is an illusion. While they are certainly not barred from political engagement, nor do they share the historically violent oppression of the marginalized, they are today increasingly exposed to forms of subtle disenfranchisement, which both hides from view their coercion, and also pushes them toward frustrated distraction aimed at others who are not responsible. While the three mechanisms I will discuss apply to both the marginalized and those with some degree of social power, it is important to note that both are affected by these mechanisms but in differing ways, and usually in ways which pit their interests against one another to politically thwart solidarity.

PSYCHOPOLITICS

Byung-Chul Han in his book “Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power,” focuses on how power operates in modern societies, particularly through the use of digital technology, surveillance, and the control of individual desires.

The Digital Panopticon and Media Fragmentation

Han’s Psychopolitics (2017) emphasizes the role of digital media and algorithmic technology in creating an environment where individuals are constantly exposed to information and stimuli. This saturation can lead to a lack of focus on significant political issues, thus contributing to depoliticization. In “The Transparency Society” (2015), Han argues that individuals are transformed into algorithmic identities based on their online habits, consumer activities, and demographic data. These identities are used by automated systems to predict and manipulate individual behavior, ultimately eroding personal autonomy.

Digital media algorithms also capitalize on human decision-making, steering individuals towards certain decisions while suppressing others (Han, 2017). Emotionally charged content and prioritization of engagement over substantive discussion further contribute to the decline of critical thought in political discourse. As a result, political subjects become more likely to act based on raw emotions, fear, and shallow reasoning (Han, 2015).

Depoliticization is also a desired outcome for political parties that cannot garner popular support due to policies that do not benefit the masses. By limiting political choices and frustrating those who are politically knowledgeable, the chances of getting elected by a minority increase, while the demand for change from voters decreases (Giroux, 2014).

The decline of civic education can be connected to the neoliberal emphasis on individualism and market-driven solutions (Brown, 2015). The focus on individual success over collective responsibility further erodes political engagement and exacerbates depoliticization. Economic coercion under neoliberalism dissolves the common good, leaving individuals struggling to succeed as “achievement subjects” (Han, 2017), which diminishes their concern for larger political issues.

In conclusion, digital media and algorithmic technology play a significant role in shaping individual desires and subjectivities, leading to depoliticization. The erosion of personal autonomy, prioritization of emotionally charged content, and the decline of civic education contribute to a lack of critical thought and political engagement.

ECONOMIZATION

Han discusses how neoliberalism has led to greater economic inequality, which can contribute to depoliticization by creating a sense of powerlessness among those who feel left behind by the system. However, it is Wendy Brown’s concept of economization that best describes the way economic logic displaces all other logic and defines the nature of all relationships under neoliberalism.

Depoliticization and economization are closely related concepts, particularly as an output of neoliberalism, which organizes society into competitive market-based hierarchies rather than states with citizens imbued with rights, who participate in separate economic and political arenas as portrayed in the post-enlightenment and early modern liberal ideal.

Brown (2015) states that under neoliberalism, political and social spheres are increasingly subjected to market logic and economic rationality. This process of economization transforms all aspects of life into commodities that can be bought, sold, and managed according to market principles. The relational domains of everday life become a site for neoliberal governmentality (McNay, 2009).

As a result, the traditional political domain, which once focused on the collective good, is eroded by individual self-interest and competition. This shift towards market-driven solutions and an emphasis on individualism leads to the depoliticization of the public sphere. Citizens become more concerned with personal economic success rather than engaging in collective action to address social and political issues (Brown, 2015).

Moreover, Brown (2015) contends that the economization of politics undermines democratic institutions and processes. This further contributes to depoliticization, as citizens lose faith in the efficacy of political participation and become more disengaged from the political process. This ties in with my next subject – legal corruption of democratic institutions.

In summary, depoliticization is also an effect of the infiltration of market logic into the political and social spheres eroding democratic institutions which diminishes the importance of collective action, and fosters a focus on individual self-interest over the common good (Brown, 2015).

LEGAL CORRUPTION

From any rational standpoint of democratic understanding, the US political system is deeply corrupted by minority interests of the elite and corporations.

The US political system has been heavily influenced by the interests of elites and corporations, resulting in a significant deviation from the principles of democratic representation. Brown (2015) explains that the infiltration of market logic with policies and decisions increasingly become shaped by economic imperatives rather than the will of the people. Illegal corruption is widespread though less notable, but in the end it is American blindness to the legalized corruption which is more troubling (Clark & Recker, 2022).

This legalized corruption of the democratic process has been facilitated by Supreme Court decisions, such as Citizens United v. FEC, which granted corporations the same rights as individuals in terms of political spending, thereby enabling the wealthy and corporations to exert a disproportionate influence on elections and policy-making (Hasen, 2020). This legal recognition of corporate interests undermines the foundations of democratic governance, as it privileges the voices of a few powerful entities over the needs and desires of the majority.

The entrenchment of this corporate influence in the US political system can be traced back to the rise of neoliberalism, which promotes the primacy of markets and individualism over collective action and the common good (Harvey, 2005). This ideological shift has facilitated the increasing alignment of politics with market logic, resulting in the marginalization of public interests in favor of corporate and elite gains.

As a consequence of these ongoing shifts, the US has come to resemble a corporate state, in which political subjects are governed by market logic and possess limited influence over policy decisions. This predicament is simultaneously a cause and an outcome of depoliticization, as individuals grow disillusioned with the political process and withdraw from civic engagement, feeling that their impact is negligible (Brown, 2015).

This sense of powerlessness is supported by Gilens and Page’s (2014) analysis, which found that the policy preferences of average citizens have a minimal impact on policy outcomes, whereas the preferences of economic elites and interest groups hold significantly more sway. As a result, the political process is increasingly characterized by a disproportionate influence of corporate and elite interests, further contributing to depoliticization and citizens’ detachment from political participation.

Given the entrenchment of corporate power and market logic in the US political system, it is unlikely that there will be significant changes to this state of affairs in the foreseeable future. This persistence of corporate dominance and the marginalization of the public interest will continue to contribute to depoliticization and the erosion of democratic values in the US.

• Photo by AM Brown

Additional Fast Facts:
1- In 2021, the US had fallen from 17th (2016) to 27th and was no longer considered to be in the top 25 least corrupt nations. Today it barely clings to the 25th spot.

2- The US now ranks 30th in International Democracy Rankings

References and further reading

Alexander, M. (2020). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.

Bartels, L. M. (2012). Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton University Press.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. Zone Books.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.

Clark, A. K., & Recker, K. (2022, November). Congressional Corruption by the Numbers. In Scandal and Corruption in Congress (pp. 103-126). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.

Feagin, J. R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. Routledge.

Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. Routledge.

Fraser, N. (2019). The old is dying and the new cannot be born: From progressive neoliberalism to Trump and beyond. Verso Books.

Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. University of Illinois Press.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). The Violence of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America’s Disimagination Machine. City Lights Publishers.

Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. Verso Books.

Han, B.-C. (2015). The Transparency Society. Stanford University Press.

Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, USA.

Hasen, R. L. (2020). Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy. Yale University Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. The New Press.

Klandermans, B. (2013). The Social Psychology of Protest. In D. A. Snow, D. della Porta, B. Klandermans, & D. McAdam (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Wiley-Blackwell.

McNay, L. (2009). Self as enterprise: Dilemmas of control and resistance in Foucault’s The Birth of Biopolitics. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 55-77.

Masket, S., & Noel, H. (2012). Serving Two Masters: Using Referenda to Assess Partisan Versus Dyadic Legislative Representation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 738-750.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard University Press.

McAdam, D. (1999). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press.

McChesney, R. W. (1999). Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. University of Illinois Press.

Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (2006). Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge.

Orfield, G. (2001). Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation. Harvard University Civil Rights Project.

Piketty, T. (2017). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press.